Are special effects more important than actors?

The concept of a big Hollywood star earning $20 million per film seems phenomenal, but when special effects budgets are reaching $100 million, it would seem that the importance of ‘on screen talent’ has changed.

With the latest string of blockbusters set to hit theaters this summer, overall production costs have risen in the last 2 years according to a report in the LA Times. Keeping this in mind, international box office receipts are climbing while the growth at home is slow. Are audiences demanding more explosions over story or characters in movies?

Big blockbuster movies are a huge investment, sometimes costing in excess of $200 million, but when so much spend is being allocated to special effects, is it not time to ask the question whether we can see a future with less on screen talent?

Sure, we love special effects, and there is no doubt that the sci-fi, action genre can incorporate them, but it would appear that the visual marketing of these movies has shifted. No longer is a ‘star name’ being used to sell the film in the same manner. It’s more about the concept and the unique ‘nature’ of the film that is being marketed to audiences. Films like the ‘Transformers’ or ‘Battleship’ each have their own special quality. Audiences are fascinated by the absurdity of a board game being made into a movie. And it’s every geek’s fantasy to see robots and humans fight on screen in one big epic brawl.

What do you think? Do you care so much about who’s starring in a movie, or do you go for the special effects?

film industry network members